Intersonographer Reproducibility and Intermethod Variability of Ultrasound Measurements of Carotid Artery Stenosis: The Tromsø Study
Background and Purpose: Knowledge of the reproducibility of a diagnostic method is important in order to evaluate its usefulness. Few studies have examined interobserver and intermethod agreement on ultrasound measurements of carotid stenosis. Methods: Intersonographer agreement on ultrasound measur...
| Published in: | Cerebrovascular Diseases |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
S. Karger AG
2000
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000016058 https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/16058 |
| Summary: | Background and Purpose: Knowledge of the reproducibility of a diagnostic method is important in order to evaluate its usefulness. Few studies have examined interobserver and intermethod agreement on ultrasound measurements of carotid stenosis. Methods: Intersonographer agreement on ultrasound measurements of carotid plaque morphology and the estimated degree of stenosis by three ultrasound methods were assessed in a random sample of 51 participants with stenotic carotid arteries selected from a population health survey. The degree of stenosis was assessed by measurements of velocity, lumen diameter reduction and cross-sectional lumen area. Intermethod agreement on the degree of carotid stenosis was also assessed. Results: Agreement on plaque echogenicity and heterogeneity was moderate (κ = 0.56 and κ = 0.60, respectively). The mean degree of stenosis and median absolute difference between observers of the estimated degree of stenosis by the velocity method were 46.3 and 10.8%, respectively. The corresponding values were 51.0 and 5.8% for the diameter method, and 57.1 and 7.2%, for the cross-sectional lumen method. The limits of agreement for intersonographer reproducibility varied between ±19.7 and 26.5%. For all methods, reproducibility increased with increasing degree of stenosis. Differences between the methods were large in low-grade stenosis but were acceptable in high-grade stenosis. Conclusions: Considerable differences in ultrasound measurement of stenosis, which could lead to different clinical conclusions, were regularly encountered no matter what ultrasound method was used. |
|---|